click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
- month deadline for talks with the taliban in afghanistan. are they able to function in society? and two, what is the best strategy for the united states in afghanistan in the long term? but she has asked two really big questions. the first is to speak and to afghanistan with the taliban and whether they can be integrated into society. they do have constitutional obligations to uphold. , with the looking at united states, transitions in afghanistan as well. there's a time line of elections to be held in afghanistan, as you know. these are processes and political decisions that the afghans must make themselves. i say this, and i do want to point to the historic shift that pakistan is very consciously and proactively making. our government has been very clear, including all of our stakeholders including the military that pakistan will be making all effort to stabilize afghanistan and bring peace to the region, because it is in all of our vital interests. we cannot walk away from the region. we live right there. and a stable and prosperous and peaceful afghanistan is in the best interest of
, the taliban and associated forces in response to the 9/11 attacks and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense. there is nothing in international law that bans the use of remotely pilotted aircraft for this purpose or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield at least when the country involved con cents or is unwilling to take action against a threat. second, targeted strikes are ethical. without question, the ability to target a specific individual from hundreds or thousands of miles away raises profound questions. here, i think it is useful to consider such strikes against the basic principle of the law of war that govern the use of force. targeted strikes conform to the principle of necessity. requirement that the target has definite military value. in this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al qaeda or its associated forces are legitimate military targets. we have the authority to target them with lethal force, just as we target enemy leaders in past conflicts such as them and the
of the president. i support him. we cannot change the equation at this point in time. the taliban have been determined to relentlessly attacked the afghan government. we have to not pull out and make sure we focus on a counterterrorism strategy compared to the surge strategy, which did not accomplish its goal. host: another word that was not mentioned was the use of drones in the confirmation hearing. guest: this is a controversial subject. i fall on the side of supporting our drone program relentlessly sorting our drone program to protect our troops and to prevent the united states from being harmed by terrorists. when al qaeda operatives were taken out by drones >>> in afghanistan and yemen -- by drone strikes in afghanistan and elsewhere, i commended the president for his counterterrorism policy. it has protected the homeland as best as any weapon we could have. it has been an effective way of putting al qaeda on the defense and keeping them on the run. the president deserves congratulations for being relentlessly consistent and persistent in his drone program. does that mean it has been
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3